Evil...

kelly1

all the stars wrote: »

We were created naked - does that not indicate anything to you?
Wouldn't that cause Lust? not making any sense these comments

The garden of Eden story is, of course, symbolic. I imagine their nakedness represented their original purity. Nakedness only became an issue after the fall because it introduced concupiscence and gave us, through inheritance, the tendency to lust after other people. Most people here don't seem to have any issue with lust but the sexual objectification of someone is wrong IMO.

Zombrex

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Lol, you know what also didn't exist in the past? Commerically driven, sensationalist, mass media.

Yes, as crime rates have been generally falling in the last 100 years, fear of crime has been rising significantly.

So ironically people feel less safe now, despite them actually being safer in general. And it gives people, particularly religious people, the sense of crumbling society, which acts as a feed back loop justifying the need for their faith.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

The garden of Eden story is, of course, symbolic. I imagine their nakedness represented their original purity. Nakedness only became an issue after the fall because it introduced concupiscence and gave us, through inheritance, the tendency to lust after other people. Most people here don't seem to have any issue with lust but the sexual objectification of someone is wrong IMO.

How are we supposed to reproduce as a species if we aren't supposed to lust after another human being.

Or to put it in perhaps a more juvenile way, how are we supposed to "get it up" without sexual arousal? Getting turned on is kind of a requirement, is it not?

kelly1

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

that a guy that doesnt give a rats arse what happens in Darfur, or Asia during the tsunami, or most of Sub-Saharan Africa, gives a **** about women wearing a few less inches of skirt?

How do you know that God doesn't care about people's suffering? Big assumption and please don't ask me why He doesn't intervene. Different discussion.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you know that God doesn't care about people's suffering? Big assumption and please don't ask me why He doesn't intervene. Different discussion.

Of course thou shalt not question the lord.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, as crime rates have been generally falling in the last 100 years, fear of crime has been rising significantly.

That's not what the latest CSO figures are saying.

Wicknight wrote: »

So ironically people feel less safe now, despite them actually being safer in general. And it gives people, particularly religious people, the sense of crumbling society, which acts as a feed back loop justifying the need for their faith.

People are not safer. How did you get that idea? There is most definitely a rise in violent crime - gangland turf wars, stabbings, shootings, muggings, drunken fighting.

Wicknight wrote: »

How are we supposed to reproduce as a species if we aren't supposed to lust after another human being.

Or to put it in perhaps a more juvenile way, how are we supposed to "get it up" without sexual arousal? Getting turned on is kind of a requirement, is it not?

You make humans sound like dogs! Love should come first. Why do relationships have to revolve around sex? Why lust? Do we have to hop into bed with someone on a first date for a "shag"? Whatever happened to courting?

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A question I would love you to answer Noel. Dades its seems the catholic god is only as powerful as his church.

I think the question has been ignored!

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

You make humans sound like dogs! Love should come first. Why do relationships have to revolve around sex? Why lust? Do we have to hop into bed with someone on a first date for a "shag"? Whatever happened to courting?

They dont - and clearly you have everyone turfed into the same box... those who aren't christian are out having sex all round them not courting and having one night stands -
Well, im not even religious but i actually dont do one night stands and do believe in love first - nothing to do with religion... Why cant you accept the good in the world?
If god was so disgusted wouldn't he have done something by now? Stop being so distressed by other people's choices -god did give free will ; so maybe he wanted people to be independant thinkers and enjoy their lives how they see fit.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Whatever happened to courting?

Nothing its still there.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Does God want, say, Indonesian tribeswomen to cover up too? Or just First World women?

For the benefit of CC, I don't know the answer to this. I suppose that would depend on whether their nakedness gave occasion for sin. If men lusted after other mens wives because, I imagine God would have issues with this and would want them to cover themselves up to prevent sin. (And sin is bad because it damages our souls and offends God).

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not what the latest CSO figures are saying.

How long has the CSO been publishing accurrate statistics?

kelly1 wrote: »

People are not safer. How did you get that idea? There is most definitely a rise in violent crime - gangland turf wars, stabbings, shootings, muggings, drunken fighting.

A rise in the reporting of violent crimes, yes. A rise in violent crimes? No, not necessarily.

LaVidaLoca

I'm afraid I have to wheel out the fossilised corpse of David Hume there Kelly as at appears you might have missed him (and the Enlightenment).

I assume that God doesnt care about those people, becuase as an infinitely powerful, infinitely loving being, (according to Christian theology) , we can see plainly that he does nothing to stop all the awful things that happen to them - and furthermore in many cases is actually the cause of it.

Now as I dont beleive He exists, I have no problem answering why this happens. As you seem to have come to the rather peculiar and difficult to defend idea that he does, it's up to you to tell us why. And in 2000 years no Christian has ever answered this question, without side-stepping, evasion, nonsense, or wall-eyed bull**** about 'faith'.

Come up with a decent answer to this question, and you'll have my full attention. No Christian ever has.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I suppose that would depend on whether their nakedness gave occasion for sin. If men lusted after other mens wives because, I imagine God would have issues with this and would want them to cover themselves up to prevent sin. (And sin is bad because it damages our souls and offends God).

It's all down to what you're used to.

While on holiday a few years, back I brought a rather semi-religious mate to a strip-bar in Russia 'round the corner from where we were staying. First night, he was too embarassed to stare, but peeked from time to time. Second night, he finally, loosened and ended up almost goggle-eyed. Third night, he'd seen it all and we concentrated on beer and having a laugh. Afterwards, he told me that his catholic-inspired guilt complex evaporated during the second evening, and was happy to be rid of it.

Covering up to "prevent sin" is an ugly and unsubtle declaration that the viewer cannot be trusted. Don't you think so?

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

If men lusted after other mens wives because, I imagine God would have issues with this and would want them to cover themselves up to prevent sin. (And sin is bad because it damages our souls and offends God).

Why wouldn't he just condemn the men to hell for not having more cop on?? Why should us women cover up just coz some men cant control themselves - If we were all naked, there would be nothing remarkable about anybody and you'd not be even remotely bothered!

And shame on you saying the garden of Eden story isn't true - its in the bible - so of course its true , word for word it must have happened and you'll be condemned to hell for saying otherwise (which you have- sorry...)

Doctor DooM

all the stars wrote: »

Why wouldn't he just condemn the men to hell for not having more cop on?? Why should us women cover up just coz some men cant control themselves - If we were all naked, there would be nothing remarkable about anybody and you'd not be even remotely bothered!

And shame on you saying the garden of Eden story isn't true - its in the bible - so of course its true , word for word it must have happened and you'll be condemned to hell for saying otherwise (which you have- sorry...)

Kelly1's not a literalist creationist type, AFAIK.

all the stars

SDooM wrote: »

Kelly1's not a literalist creationist type, AFAIK.

AFAIK - what is that?
anyway - hopefully the point is made abundantly clear!

Doctor DooM

all the stars wrote: »

AFAIK - what is that?
anyway - hopefully the point is made abundantly clear!

As Far As I Know

You should try the creationists thread if you want to talk about that

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not what the latest CSO figures are saying.

Actually it is. For example in 1985 there were 91,000 "headline" offenses recorded by the Gardai, and in 1995 there 102,000 and 2005 101,000, despite the large population increase that the Celtic Tiger brought, and the better reporting of crime by the Gardai.

kelly1 wrote: »

People are not safer. How did you get that idea?

From people being safer.

kelly1 wrote: »

There is most definitely a rise in violent crime - gangland turf wars, stabbings, shootings, muggings, drunken fighting.

There is a rise in certain violent crime, but people are still generally safer. For a start the drug dealers tend to just kill other drug dealers. The murder rate sky rockets but that doesn't mean you are more likely to be murdered (assuming you aren't a drug dealer)

It does lead though to an increased fear of crime.

kelly1 wrote: »

You make humans sound like dogs! Love should come first.

Love is largely irrelevant to sexual attraction. I love my parents and my brother, I ain't sexually attracted to them. love can be a factor in whether or not you actually have sex with the person, which goes back to the evolutionary reason we want to have sex in the first place, to produce children. Human social systems have evolved to have both parents, and often grandparents, looking after the children. It makes sense that "love" would have evolved to form strong bonds between parents to strengthen the family unit. That has been some what relegated in importance since humans developed the ability to have sex without producing children.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why do relationships have to revolve around sex? Why lust?

Because humans are designed to reproduce, and we have a large number of evolutionary systems that want us to reproduce.

Which is why we can love a large number of people (friends, family, etc), but we are sexually aroused by only those we find sexually attractive (sexual attraction being related to evolutionary aspects that ensure healthy children, such as genetic diversity).

You don't find your parents sexually attractive, or your sister, for these reasons. Most people don't find the same sex sexually attractive.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do we have to hop into bed with someone on a first date for a "shag"?

No one has to do anything.

all the stars

SDooM wrote: »

As Far As I Know

You should try the creationists thread if you want to talk about that

thanks for that!

well, im not into creatitionism really... just a bit of a hippy... want a happy world and lots less judgement... thats all

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Can you answer the naked Indonesian lady one please?

hmm.... any websites around where we can judge for ourselves exactly how sin-inducing these Indonesiettes are?

Sangre

actually wicknight the CSO stats for crimes aren't the best as the garda changed how they're reported a few years ago with PULSE. Does the term headline offence even exist anymore?

murder wise were currently on the bottom of an upward slope of a bell. huge numbers in 18th and they plummetted down to about 50s and are slowly rising again.

CerebralCortex

Today's evil

Here.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Does God want, say, Indonesian tribeswomen to cover up too? Or just First World women?

Lots of people seem to be very keen to get an answer to this question! If their nakedness caused men to lust over them, then I imagine God would have a problem with that. Jesus said in the bible that lust is as bad a adultery. It is my belief that sexual desire for someone who is not ones spouse, is wrong. People can take that or leave it, makes no odds to me.

edit: certain people were pushing me to answer this question and I already answered it in post 101 but I thought I mustn't have hit submit because I was being chased for an answer.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus said in the bible that lust is as bad a adultery. It is my belief that sexual desire for someone who is not ones spouse, is wrong.

So what happens when a european turns up in Indonesia and sees an undressed girl -- normal for her culture, abnormal for his. He therefore feels lustful thoughts, or is offended that somebody put him in mortal danger of having such thoughts, but through no fault of hers.

So, whose fault really is that? From what I think you're saying, would you prefer the indonesianette keep herself fully clothed in the off-chance that somebody might turn up and be offended?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

So what happens when a european turns up in Indonesia and sees an undressed girl -- normal for her culture, abnormal for his. He therefore feels lustful thoughts, or is offended that somebody put him in mortal danger of having such thoughts, but through no fault of hers.

So, whose fault really is that? From what I think you're saying, would you prefer the indonesianette keep herself fully clothed in the off-chance that somebody might turn up and be offended?

You're stretching it a bit now aren't you? I depends on their intentions. If the european looks at the girl innocently, there's nothing wrong with that. If he/she imagines him/herself in bed with her, that's wrong.

If the girl knows that she's causing temptation to sin and continues to remain naked, the she's guilty.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

You're stretching it a bit now aren't you? I depends on their intentions. If the european looks at the girl innocently, there's nothing wrong with that. If he/she imagines him/herself in bed with her, that's wrong. If the girl knows that she's causing temptation to sin and continues to remain naked, the she's guilty.

I'm not stretching it at all -- when I was in Jakarta last year during Ramadan, several restaurants and bars were firebombed in the south of the city (several miles from where I was staying) because they were "immoral".. In that context, it meant that guys and girls were meeting without chaperones and they were drinking alcohol. They may have bombed a few brothels too.

I must say that I'm having a hard time seeing much difference between the islamists' attitude and yours. You've both asserted that "sin" can arise through something that's perfectly normal and perhaps even entirely innocent, for one person. But when viewed from somebody else's point of view, this innocent activity becomes a "temptation" of which the person is "guilty". The question that the offended party is being an arse (by being offended to start with, then hanging around to continue to be offended) is never asked. The only difference between you and the islamists seems to be that the islamists are prepared to attempt to kill the other person to remove the temptation which is a ludicrous position.

Do you agree that your point of view is little different from the islamists?

.

pH

all the stars wrote: »

Sorry, know plenty of religious people who are alco's... and after that, Jesus turned his blood into wine - so clearly its grand to drink. So dont go worrying too much about that...

Edit actually water into wine, and wine into blood ... but even more than that, it wasn't for a single drink or a toast, my understanding of the scripture is that the crowd had been drinking all day and drunk the place dry, Jesus then provided extra - clearly not only condoning the drinking of alcohol, but also condoning binge drinking!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

If the girl knows that she's causing temptation to sin and continues to remain naked, the she's guilty.

I'm pretty sure most girls who look at me (clothed or otherwise) are sexually aroused by me.

Does that mean I'm sinning simply by existing?

(joking of course about the first part, but its still a valid question. Surely attractive people are guilty of "temptation to sin" simply by being attractive. Which is a bit stupid)

Doctor DooM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most girls who look at me (clothed or otherwise) are sexually aroused by me.

Does that mean I'm sinning simply by existing?

(joking of course about the first part, but its still a valid question. Surely attractive people are guilty of "temptation to sin" simply by being attractive. Which is a bit stupid)

Made me lol.

Very good point but maybe we should start a new thread for this, unless kelly1 thinks nubile young ladies are evil directly in proportion to their nubility?

Zombrex

SDooM wrote: »

unless kelly1 thinks nubile young ladies are evil directly in proportion to their nubility?

Interesting how it is always girls isn't it ...